Ho Soo Fong
Ho Soo Fong is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 8 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 12 counsels. Through 7 law firms. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 4 complex cases, representing 50.0% of their total caseload.
Legal Representation
Ho Soo Fong has been represented by 7 law firms and 12 counsels.
| Law Firm | Cases Handled |
|---|---|
| Dodwell & Co LLC | 1 case |
| Optimus Chambers LLC | 1 case |
| Surian & Partners | 1 case |
| Kenneth Tan Partnership | 1 case |
| Legal Solutions LLC | 1 case |
| Wong Tan and Molly Lim LLC | 1 case |
| Mimi Oh & Associates | 1 case |
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of Ho Soo Fong's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 3.8
- Complex Cases
- 4 (50.0%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
| Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 43.8 parties avg |
| Partial | 24.0 parties avg |
| Won | 23.5 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
| Year | Cases |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 16.0 parties avg |
| 2021 | 13.0 parties avg |
| 2020 | 13.0 parties avg |
| 2018 | 13.0 parties avg |
| 2010 | 14.0 parties avg |
| 2007 | 13.0 parties avg |
| 2006 | 14.0 parties avg |
| 2004 | 14.0 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of Ho Soo Fong's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
| Outcome Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 4(50.0%) |
| Partial | 2(25.0%) |
| Won | 2(25.0%) |
Monetary Outcomes
| Currency | Average |
|---|---|
| SGD | 917,348.534 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
| Year | Total Cases |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 1 |
| 2021 | 1 1 |
| 2020 | 1 1 |
| 2018 | 1 1 |
| 2010 | 1 1 |
| 2007 | 1 1 |
| 2006 | 1 1 |
| 2004 | 1 1 |
Case History
Displaying all 8 cases
| Case | Role | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
05 Apr 2023 | Defendant | LostThe court found that the Defendant held shares on trust for the Plaintiffs. |
06 Sep 2021 | Applicant, Defendant | LostApplication for leave to appeal dismissed; costs of $4,000 to be paid to the respondent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
14 Sep 2020 | Defendant | LostJudgment against the Defendant; jointly and severally liable for damages in the amount of $3,590,587 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
25 Nov 2018 | Applicant | LostApplication for extension of time to file notice of appeal was dismissed with costs of $3,300 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
13 Jun 2010 | Appellant | PartialThe Company is to pay the appellant a sum of $75,507.10 together with interest at 5.33% per annum from the date of the writ to the date of this judgment. The second respondent is liable for the debt of the Company up to a sum of $47,100 together with interest at 5.33% per annum from the date of the writ to the date of this judgment. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
28 Jan 2007 | Appellant | WonAppeal allowed with costs to the appellants. The matter was remitted back to the Registrar to determine whether the appellants have suffered an actual loss as a result of the forced sale of 179 Syed Alwi Road and to assess what that loss is. |
29 May 2006 | Appellant | PartialAppeal dismissed regarding losses from the forced sale of 179 Syed Alwi Road. |
17 Nov 2004 | Plaintiff | WonThe court allowed the application and directed an inquiry by the Registrar as to whether any and, if so, what damages were sustained that were attributable to the refusal or failure to withdraw the caveats when requested to do so between 21 October 2002 and 30 June 2004. |